We agree with the motion court that the results of the post-conviction DNA tests would not have probably resulted in a more favorable verdict for defendant (see, CPL 440.10 [1] [g]; 440.30 [1-a]). The fact that defendant was not the source of the semen is entirely consistent with the victim's testimony that she had intercourse with her boyfriend shortly before the rape, and that she did not know if defendant ejaculated. Moreover, the evidence of guilt was overwhelming...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
