Ege v. Yukins
380 F. Supp. 2d 852, 2005 WL 1847291, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15953 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The admission of scientifically baseless and grossly misleading expert testimony, which is the only physical evidence connecting a defendant to a crime, violates the Due Process Clause's guarantee of a fundamentally fair trial. Trial counsel's failure to object to such evidence constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to warrant a writ of habeas corpus.
Facts:
- Carol Ege and the victim, Cindy Thompson, were in a romantic relationship with the same man, Mark Davis.
- Thompson was seven months pregnant at the time of her murder, allegedly with Davis's child.
- Ege had previously expressed extreme animosity toward Thompson, including making verbal threats, attempting to hire people to kill her, and engaging in a physical altercation.
- On the evening of February 21 or early morning of February 22, 1984, Thompson was brutally bludgeoned and stabbed to death in her home.
- The initial police investigation in 1984 was deficient and did not lead to any charges.
- In 1992, the investigation was reopened, and in 1993 Thompson's body was exhumed to investigate a mark on her cheek, which the initial autopsy had identified as livor mortis.
- No physical evidence from the crime scene, such as fingerprints or hairs, connected Ege to the murder.
Procedural Posture:
- Nine years after the murder, a grand jury indicted Carol Ege for first-degree murder.
- At a jury trial in Oakland County Circuit Court, the prosecution presented expert testimony from Dr. Alan Warnick identifying a mark on the victim as a bite mark highly consistent with Ege's dentition.
- Dr. Warnick further testified that out of 3.5 million people in the Detroit area, Ege was the only one who could have made the mark; Ege's counsel did not object.
- The jury found Ege guilty of first-degree murder, and the trial court sentenced her to life in prison without parole.
- Ege appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which affirmed her conviction.
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied Ege's application for leave to appeal.
- Ege filed a motion for relief from judgment in the state trial court, arguing the bite mark testimony violated her due process rights and that her counsel was ineffective. The trial court found the evidence was improperly admitted but denied relief due to the lack of an objection and insufficient prejudice.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal the post-conviction ruling.
- Ege filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the admission of scientifically unfounded expert testimony that a bite mark on a victim could only have been made by the defendant out of 3.5 million people, combined with trial counsel's failure to object to that testimony, violate the defendant's constitutional rights to due process and effective assistance of counsel, thereby warranting a writ of habeas corpus?
Opinions:
Majority - Lawson, District Judge
Yes. The admission of the bite mark evidence and the expert's statistical opinion violated the petitioner's right to a fair trial, and trial counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The expert testimony identifying the petitioner as the only possible perpetrator in the Detroit metropolitan area was unreliable, grossly misleading, and so extremely unfair that its admission violated fundamental concepts of justice. This evidence was the only physical evidence tying the petitioner to the crime, and its admission had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict. Furthermore, trial counsel's failure to object to this obviously assailable and highly prejudicial testimony was substandard performance that prejudiced the defense, meeting the two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington. Because the state court's denial of relief was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, a conditional writ of habeas corpus is warranted.
Analysis:
This case serves as a powerful critique of the use of unreliable or "junk science" in criminal trials, particularly bite mark analysis. The court's decision emphasizes that when such evidence is not only admitted but also presented with a deceptive aura of mathematical certainty, it can render a trial fundamentally unfair, violating due process. The ruling reinforces that the failure of defense counsel to challenge such scientifically baseless evidence is not a legitimate trial strategy but constitutes deficient performance under the Strickland standard. This opinion signals to lower courts that habeas relief is appropriate when a conviction rests heavily on discredited forensic techniques that lack a proper scientific foundation.
