No. 21-5932

Michael R. Burns v. United States

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2021-10-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: chain-of-custody civil-rights dna-fabrication due-process evidence-substitution evidence-tampering fabrication forensic-evidence forensic-integrity laboratory-procedure substitution
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-11-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the DNA and fingerprint evidence was fabricated by substituting the gloves examined for fingerprints with different gloves examined for DNA, resulting in an unreliable conviction

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Question presented . | Lowea Coan BRS, Ndowissmoxioned Neate euce Was Les Vhs C oSnk Way IN Wa Kyu AX cn) slay Did Welowen C OVRN "I RROR Nos JOC £AZS sneer Or Madersne, WanngSal Coniesion, Ou Vis Disec Nepeale Judgment or decision on merits Weve R Se. | ay edECENEBS ond exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary powers I nn ICE OF j 2021 7 yy wo ee oREMe CURE ERK n . . ~ ss specific claim for [ AFFIRMATIVE RELIEF ] , Vacate.." 1. . _ . ee . . | Ce Compare exhibits 78 v. 126 and 127 when compared the gloves are not one and the same. First received and photographed at laboratory exhibit 78. The gloves are cut right ‘ at the wrist and upon examination of the gloves in this photograph that was taken by David R. Mackin when the alleged fingerprint analysis was conducted then the gloves were placed in Locked é Evidence Storage. A second DNA sample technician testified on the record to specifically, the evidence was taken out of Locked @ Evidence Storage and the next photographs were personally taken by Jessica L. Robidoux exhibits' 126 and 127 . With no reasonable doubt the gloves are not one and the same, clearly the gloves were substituted? The respective photographs were taken at the . . Lakeville, Ma Laboratory that Only conducts Fingerprint Testing, and takes Forensic DNA samples. The DNA samples get sent to a completely different laboratory the Top DNA UNIT for testing. the [ Massachusetts State Police Forensic Technology Center ] located in Maynard, Ma. Clearly the gloves and received out of Locked @ Evidence Storage were substituted [7] We know this, : respectively this is undisputed fact the evidence indisputable. The issue is one singular , sample was taken off the inside and the outside of the clearly substituted gloves and sent to the a completely different Laboratory the Top DNA unit for testing ; and analysis. oO the DNA unit came up with a major DNA profile off the ) inside of the substituted gl aves, The evidence is irrefutable Petitioners’ major DNA profile was fabricated [ off the inside of the substituted gloves ] fo | ~~~ For first Fingerprint Technician took photographs upon Téceipt then put those , . same gloves in to Locked @ Evidence Storage. A Second DNA Sample Technician. receives gloves out of Locked @ Evidence Storage and personally photographs the . | gloves exhibit 126 and 127. . | . th. clearly depict the latex gloves were substituted and the DNA was fabricated as a major profile from the alleged singular sample that was taken off the inside of the . substituted latex gloves all photographic evidence that clearly showed the disparity between the latex gloves first photographed with Fingerprint Technician and then after receipt out , of locked 8 evidence storage with the second DNA Sample Technician photographs For the DNA Sample Technician here at the Lakeville, Ma Laboratory took samples off the newly substituted gloves depicted in exhibits 126 and 127 and sent those | samples to a completely different Laboratory for testing and analysis the Top, ; DNA unit for testing and analysis located in Maynard, Ma. the DNA unit came up with a major DNA profile off the inside of the substituted gloves. The evidence is irrefutable Petitioners' major DNA profile was fabricated | off the inside of | the substituted gloves | . see that the gloves were substituted at the Lakeville Laboratory between examinations for Fingerprints and DNA Samples all the forensic evidence is in clear question and can not be relied on, [both] Laboratories work in this case is in question as well as the testimony that was derived from the three Massachusetts State Police Forensic Technicians from the 2 different Laboratories. | Court has a Petitioner as in Petitioners case methodically and relentlessly moving the Court to address the DNA and Fingerprint Evidence Fabrication and the Court Refuses to go on the record to ad

Docket Entries

2021-11-15
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-28
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/12/2021.
2021-10-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-09-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 8, 2021)

Attorneys

Michael R. Burns
Michael R. Burns — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent